Views on Genetic Modification

[Sociobiology]

that whole thing is insane on many levels if anything the farmer should be able to sue Monsanto for contaminating his crop.

Hardly, a small level of contamination is benign and if 'organic' farmers were allowed to do that they would be raising food prices for everyone when they are the ones who should be required to pay the cost of keeping their crops completely GM free if that is what they need to be 'organic' certified.

organic food can be and often is GM.

[Brain Hand]

What about if someone else were trying to save her? Would there be an imperative for you not to get in their way?

Is there an imperative to get out of the way of ambulances when you are driving?

Since the gradient of sacrifice applies to the person in the way, and because any point on that gradient is again arbitrary, no. If I wanted to save the girl, and a rock was in my way, I go around the rock. If there happened to be a human in my way in saving the girl, then I would go around the human. Now, I realize that many societies set rules for ambulances, but these rules are arbitrary social contracts, not some sort of absolute ethical code from the galaxies themselves or something. I am compliant to play the game we play, but I would rather we realize that it is still a game.

A case could be made from evolutionary ethics, because of the bystander effect, assuming that evolution caused this phenomenon. Even if I just made a naturalistic fallacy in my last statement, an ethical framework that dictated an ethical imperative to act in certain cases, would also have to include a societal tool to cause people to act. If the ethics that dictated an ethical imperative did not have a tool, then we would essentially be saying, "This is how we should act, but that will rarely ever happen." Ok, that is great that we need to act in a way we know we won't, how irrelevant. Letting government set laws to act would be unenforceable, unless we spend more money on police than science. With so many police who is watching the watchmen anyway?

Now, if your trying to get me to admit that Monsanto lobbying and suing to keep their power is like trying to run around a sitting human to save a girl, then that is not quite accurate. Monsanto lobbying, and suing to keep their power while saving lives is like chopping off a finger of the human in the way on your way to saving the girl. Maybe you throw the finger next to the girl in the hopes the snake attacks that first. If Monsanto's product is really awesome enough to compete without lobbying and unnecessary suing, which I suspect it is, then don't freaking lobby or sue unnecessarily. Lobbying and not unnecessary suing makes the difference between making an honest profit and being unethical in this case.

The geocentric model was a lot more accurate than that (in fact it was more accurate than a heliocentric model with circular orbits, of course if you use elliptical orbits…).

The biggest problem that the ancient Greeks had though was that they weren't very big on experiments and testing their ideas to see if they conform with reality (or even basic logic, heavier things falling faster is self-contradictory).

But enough of the digression, it is important to re-evaluate things, but it's equally important to realise that some things just aren't likely to ever change.

agreed I doubt things will change. It is idealistic of me, but collecting the data and keeping an eye on things does not take many resources.

That's probably even less likely than evolution being proven false.

agreed in principle I believe in evolution. However, my intuition makes me think that since data was collected for longer on the evolution theory, the chance of evolution's change might be lower. However, measuring uncertainty is left to statistics, or is it probability. I am really really personally ok not writing about that topic right now, hehe.

What happened to Ford after the Pinto incident is a pretty good incentive for a company not to do it.

agreed

There aren't many wild foods left (we've selectively bred basically everything we eat).

Monsanto are already competing with seeds farmers just have at the end of a harvest of non-GM crops.

Besides, farmers in the west haven't been saving their seeds for a very long time (hybrids don't breed true, so if they want the benefits of hybrid strains they had to keep buying seed, division of labour also has its advantages).

The seed collecting thing is a little unethical when they don't have to design it that way. Sure, the money goes to further GM science. However, it is still a bit rude. I would love to support Monsanto financially if that was all they did, plus accidents, plus a few other rude things.

My bigger issue is with Monsanto lobbying to make seed collection and storage unnecessarily expensive. Sure, Monsanto competes with the 5% of farmers, just a number for the sake of argument here, that collect their seeds. What would that percent be if they didn't lobby congress to make seed collection cost $1 million per crop in seed storage systems? How much better off would the 5% of farmers be? Sure, there might only be 7% competition with seed collectors, but that is a lot of people and a lot of money that could have been used for the luxury or better competition of that 7%.

So, why not artificially boycott Monsanto for that 2% or more to make it worth their while to stop being unethical?

Again, my number one issue is Monsanto's suing practices.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/03/12/twenty-year-review-gm-crops-are-safe/

I love you long time. I am here to learn, as debate is my favored learning medium.

Hardly, a small level of contamination is benign and if 'organic' farmers were allowed to do that they would be raising food prices for everyone when they are the ones who should be required to pay the cost of keeping their crops completely GM free if that is what they need to be 'organic' certified.

I also suspect that many (maybe even all) of the cases where it is claimed that Monsanto are suing innocent farmers are not what the activists claim they are, I've certainly seen some where the farmers being sued were not so innocent.

Or Monsanto might go out of business and a more ethical company might replace it.

But, that is a really good suspicion that perhaps the cases really do have ill intent. I suspect there are those who look the other way when Monsanto crops end up on their land, and those who don't actually know and get sued.

EDIT: By the way, this was fun. I learned much. However, my college classes are starting, my senior project needs to get done, and this last post took me four hours to write. So, I need to focus on my grades for now. So please counter me, I will read it, but unfortunately I will not have time to keep debating. Have a good day!